International footballer fails to comply with financial disclosure

Lauren Gaines

UD v TQ: The importance of complying with financial disclosure

Recent divorce case involving an unnamed international footballer is a salutary reminder of the importance of complying with financial disclosure. 

The importance of providing full and frank financial disclosure on divorce, however uncomfortable it may feel, cannot be overestimated. If a party hides assets or fails to disclose the extent of their financial resources, they risk being penalised in costs – as an unnamed international footballer has discovered in the recent case of UD v TQ1 . This case is a salutary reminder to those considering a divorce, that both parties will be expected to fully comply with disclosure duties and orders of the court.

What’s the background of UD v TQ?

The husband (H) is a professional footballer who currently lives in England. He married his wife, a 27 year old former tv presenter (W) in 2020 in her home country (X) and they have a child who is now 3.

Because of the nature of H’s international football career, H & W hardly ever lived together during the marriage. H also had two children by two different mothers prior to his marriage to W and after separation from W, had reconciled with one of the mothers.

During the marriage H was always financially generous to W, however when the marriage ended in May 2022, he cut off her financial support, leaving her with very little money to meet her ongoing expenses. W’s own assets were limited to an apartment in X of which more than half was mortgaged.

W began financial remedy proceedings in the English courts, which included applications for H to pay maintenance until the case concluded (known as Maintenance Pending Suit – ‘MPS’) and an order that he pay her legal fees for these proceedings.

Disclosure failings

Financial disclosure is a crucial element in the course of financial proceedings: both parties must file Form E financial statements setting out their respective financial positions, such as income, capital and liabilities. While W produced her Form E, H did not and instead challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear W’s claim (without success).

W was successful in obtaining an order from the Court that H should pay her MPS and her legal fees. H failed to comply. W issued proceedings to enforce the orders H had failed to comply with, which eventually culminated in H making half-hearted attempts at producing financial disclosure.

The court found that W’s disclosure had been clear and comprehensive whereas F’s had been inadequate and opaque. In his judgment, His Honour Judge Hess, the lead judge of the London Financial Remedies Court, described F’s disclosure as dishonest and actively misleading; he was “wholly evasive” about how many properties he actually owned; had misrepresented or failed to disclose the numbers and locations of bank accounts; and he provided no details about a suspected investment in a transport company.

This all amounted to ‘litigation misconduct’, entitling the judge to ‘draw inferences’ – i.e. to make his own conclusions about what financial resources the H was likely to have concealed and what the actual facts were.

Costs implications

The starting point in financial remedy proceedings is that each party pays their own legal fees.

By the final hearing, W had already incurred £178,153 in costs (though two costs orders had already been made against H for £15,549 and £19,228). The judge made a third and final costs order against H to the tune of £50,000 to reflect his conduct in the proceedings.

The outcome

Formerly a TV presenter in her own country, it was going to be “very difficult” for W to secure employment while being a single mother. In contrast, H’s assets run into many hundreds of thousands of pounds. He is also expected to earn in the region of £891,600 in the current football season.

In financial remedies cases, the court’s first consideration is the welfare of any children. Here, there was a young child requiring a stable home with his mother in her home country (X); W needed to be able to look after him and educate him ‘without undue hardship’.

The judge made several orders including:

• A £150,000 lump sum for W to redeem her mortgage;
• Spousal periodical payments of £2,000 per month until November 2027, reducing to a nominal level of 5p per year until 31 April 2034. During this period the spousal maintenance can be varied upwards should H attempt to pursue fraud proceedings against W in respect of the property she purchased with his money.
• Monthly child periodical payments of £2,000 until the child reaches 18 (or ceases full-time education(plus nursery and school fees).
• Due to H’s conduct in the proceedings, these payments would be taken directly from H’s wages (called an attachment of earnings order).

Also read

•  Our blog post: Why Did Lauryn Goodman Take Kyle Walker to Court? 

How can we help?

This is far from the first case to illustrate how seriously the courts treat failure to properly disclosure in financial proceedings on a divorce. It can cost an uncooperative party dearly and we can help you avoid the risk from the outset.

The divorce and family lawyers at Osbornes Law have years of experience advising wealthy individuals, including sports personalities and business professionals, on divorce and finances.

1UD v TQ [2024] EWFC 119 (B)